JUDGMENT : These writ petitions are preferred by the assessees assailing the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT . It raises similar questions of law and are therefore taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. In W.P(C) No. 7101/2017; W.P(C) No. 7102/2017; W.P(C) No. 7103/2017 and W.P.(C) No. 7104/2017, the petitioners put into challenge the recording of reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Notice under Sub-Section 2 of Section 143 dated 23.05.2017 as well as the notices under Sub-Section 1 of Section 142 dated 23.05.2017 and 31.10.2017. 3. In W.P(C) No. 7482/2017, the petitioner is a private limited company. The company has submitted its return of income for the assessment years 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 showing total income at Rs. NIL. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 re-opened the case of the writ petitioner under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 by issuing of notice dated 31.03.2017 under Section 148 of the Act. In response to the Notice under Section 148 of the Act, the petitioner submitted its return of income on 09.08.2017 and thereafter vide its letter dated 10.08.2017 applied to the respondent No. 1 to provide its ground on which the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 30.08.2017 communicated to the petitioner copy of the reasons recorded for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Hence the writ petition has been filed put into challenge the recording of reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2017, the notice under Sub-Section (2) of Section 143 dated 06.11.2017 and notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 dated 06.11.2017. 4. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged W.P.(C) No. 7103/2017 before the Court as a lead case, the facts pertaining to the said writ petition are referred to wherever required. However, the specific facts in respect to the other writ petitions will be referred to accordingly. 5. The petitioner company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on the 14 th day of February, 2008. However, the specific facts in respect to the other writ petitions will be referred to accordingly. 5. The petitioner company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on the 14 th day of February, 2008. The petitioner has registered office at Abhay Chandra Dutta Lane, F.A. Road, Kumarpara, Guwahati-781001. The petitioner is a regular assessee under the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. The petitioner is represented in the present proceedings by one of the Directors who is arrayed as petitioner No. 2. 6. The case projected before this Court that for the previous Financial year 2009-10 relevant to assessment year 2010-11, the petitioner had earned income related to renting of immovable property and did not commence its business activities on mobile and other telephone connectivity services. It is submitted that it’s original return of income under Section 139 voluntarily for the said year on 04.03.2011 disclosing total taxable income as Rs. NIL. Thereafter a search and seizure operation and survey were carried on under Section 132 in the premises belonging to the petitioner company. The petitioner thereafter submitted an identical return on 08.09.2014 in response to the notices received from the Department under Section 153A/153C read with Section 142(1) of the Act. Thereafter a scrutiny assessment was made under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act. After considering the materials in support of the return as required by the Office of the respondent No. 1 making the assessment of the total income at NIL by accepting the income disclosing the return. Thereafter on 31.03.2017 a notice under Section 148 (1) was issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 1 to assess/re-assess its income for the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that she had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 . The petitioner No. 1 thereafter as per procedure prescribed submitted a return on 27.04.2017 which was identical in respect of the earlier returns dated 04.03.2011 and 08.09.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the reasons recorded. The reasons were thereafter supplied to the petitioner which however did not indicate the date it was recorded on. 7. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter as per procedure prescribed submitted a return on 27.04.2017 which was identical in respect of the earlier returns dated 04.03.2011 and 08.09.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the reasons recorded. The reasons were thereafter supplied to the petitioner which however did not indicate the date it was recorded on. 7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 made a statement that information was available to the assessing officer that the petitioner No. 1 had raised share capital of Rs. 1,51,00,000.00. It was further mentioned in the reasons that this information was received from the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata that most of the allottee companies were paper companies without any genuine business. In the reasons, it was mentioned that most of the companies were owned by an individual named Shri Narendar Kumar Jain. During the survey conducted, Shri Narendra Kr. Jain had sworn on oath on 11.04.2014 that he dealt in dubious transaction as a bogus entry provider and providing bogus unsecured loans. However, these reasons were not supported by any tangible materials or details as to how the escapement of income of the writ petitioner company for the assessment year 2010-11 had any link with the so-called activities of the said Shri Narendara Kr. Jain. On such vague information based on allegations without any tangible materials showing the link between the information and the escapement of income of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 held that it had reasons to believe that income of Rs. 1,51,00,000.00 escaped assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 and as such, notice under Section 148 (1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners in response to the notice served filed its objections against the assessment/re-assessment proceedings by way of written submissions filed on 12.10.2017 objecting to the proposed action sought to be taken and that the same were violative of the procedure and the provisions prescribed under Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.2017, the assessing officer rejected the objections raised by the petitioner company, although the specific objections raised by the petitioner were not specifically met by the authorities. 8. Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.2017, the assessing officer rejected the objections raised by the petitioner company, although the specific objections raised by the petitioner were not specifically met by the authorities. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the materials/basis for stating in the reasons recorded that most of the allottee companies were paper companies with no genuine business of their own have not been indicated. No such material/basis is disclosed in the reasons recorded to lead to the formation of such a belief. Details of the names and addresses of the allottee companies, number of shares allotted, amount received from them, mode of receipt etc. have not been disclosed in the reasons recorded, and therefore, totally opaque. 9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was incumbent upon the assessing officer to incorporate or indicate in the reasons recorded, at least the very essential part of details of “data prepared by the DIT(Investigation), Kolkata” referred to in the reasons and how it led to formation of belief that the petitioner’s income had escaped assessment. This had not been done. The essential materials to link the reasons with belief arrived at by the assessing officer is absent. “Narendra Kumar Jain” referred to in the reasons recorded in whose case survey was conducted on 11.04.2014 is a stranger. No case has been made out that he provided any accommodation entry to the petitioner. In the reasons recorded also there is no such statement attributed to Narendra Kumar Jain where he has stated that he provided any accommodation entry to the petitioner company. His statement was not recorded in connection with the petitioner company’s case. Any information received from the Investigation wing/valuation officer or from any other source, per se cannot be said to be a “tangible material” for reopening of a case in the absence of any enquiry conducted by the assessing officer to verify its correctness, relevance or otherwise its link to the alleged escapement of income. In the Instant case the reasons do not disclose that after receipt of information any such enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer. The assessing officer merely accepted the vague information in a mechanical manner without application of his mind. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material/evidence to show that the funds for share capital emanated from the petitioner company. The assessing officer merely accepted the vague information in a mechanical manner without application of his mind. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material/evidence to show that the funds for share capital emanated from the petitioner company. The petitioner company’s assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 was made on 31.03.2015 vide order passed under Sections 153C/143(3) by the assessing officer after proper verification of all the seized material details, documents and audited accounts. The aforesaid order dated 31.03.2015 was passed with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Guwahati (Respondent No.2) as per provisions of section 153D of the Act. There was a search & seizure operation in the case of the petitioner companies on 11.07.2012 and no incriminating material regarding share capital was found during the course of search. The information regarding increase in share capital was disclosed by the petitioner in its audited accounts which was already on record. (Annexure-2 of the writ petition). Thus, the petitioner had necessarily made full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for completion of its assessment and there was no failure on the part of the petitioner on this count. 11. Referring to the provisions of Section 147 , it is submitted that as per the first proviso to Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, where an assessment has been made under Section 143(3) of the Act, no action shall be taken under Section 147 of the Act after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. The assessing officer has not disclosed in the reasons recorded as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly which is necessary for the assessment of that assessment year so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and the evidence. This vital link is necessary as a safe guard against arbitrary re-opening of the concluded assessment. This vital link is necessary as a safe guard against arbitrary re-opening of the concluded assessment. It is submitted that there is no whisper or allegation in the reasons recorded to the effect that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that year. 12. It is submitted that while rejecting the petitioner’s objections dated 09-10-2017 on the reasons recorded by the assessing officer (Annexure “16”), the assessing officer in her order dated 24-10-2017 (Annexure “17”) has introduced certain new facts, which were not there in the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. It is submitted that it is a settled law that in the event of challenge to the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act on the basis of reasons recorded by an assessing officer, the reasons are required to be read as these are recorded and no addition/substitution/deletion are permissible to such reasons. Therefore, introduction of new facts by the assessing officer was not permissible as per settled law. Further, while rejecting the objections of the petitioner vide her order dated 24.10.2017, the assessing officer has referred to the provisions of Explanation 2(ca) to Section 147 and has stated that in the instant case, information has been received from the Directorate of Investigation that the petitioner company has raised share capital with the allotment on 31.03.2010 to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- with the face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 90/-. 13. Referring to Explanation 2(ca) inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016, it is submitted that Explanation 2 lays down the instances which may be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Under Clause (ca), the notice may be issued by the assessing officer on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed authority under sub-section 2 of Section 133C. It is submitted that Section 133C was introduced in the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014. However, no income tax authority was authorized by the CBDT to act as prescribed authority under Section 133C till 2019. Even in 2019 also the centralized verification scheme 2019 was notified vide Notification No. S.O 550(E) dated 30.01.2019. It is submitted that Section 133C was introduced in the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014. However, no income tax authority was authorized by the CBDT to act as prescribed authority under Section 133C till 2019. Even in 2019 also the centralized verification scheme 2019 was notified vide Notification No. S.O 550(E) dated 30.01.2019. Even under the said scheme, only centralized verification centre was authorized to issue notices and process the information or documents and make available the outcome of the processing to the assessing officer. Under the said scheme, only the Commissioner of Income Tax (e-Verification), Delhi was authorized for the purposes of Section 133C having jurisdiction over “All Cases of persons in respect of all incomes within the limits of all states and Union territories of India with respect to whom there is any information in possession of Directorate of Income-Tax (Systems), Central Board of Direct Taxes”. It is therefore submitted that not every information is included within the scope and ambit of Section 133C(2) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. To be an information under Section 133C(2) of the Act, requirement of Section 133C of the Act will have to be met. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statutory provision of Sections 147 , 148, 149 and 151 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. Referring to these provisions, it is submitted that the provision of Section 148 (1) required recording of reasons within the meaning of Section 147 before issuance of Notice under Section 148 and such provision is mandatory and such reasons are subject to judicial scrutiny. It is submitted that the reasons are to be read as they were recorded by the assessing officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No addition can be made to those reasons and no inference can be called to be drawn on the basis of the reasons not recorded. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on materials available on record. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment rendered by the following Judgments: 1. Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. C.I.T , reported in (2017) 390 ITR 137 (Gauhati); 2. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, A.C.I.T , reported in (2004) 268 ITR 332(Bombay); 3. Assam Co. Ltd. Vs. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment rendered by the following Judgments: 1. Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. C.I.T , reported in (2017) 390 ITR 137 (Gauhati); 2. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar, A.C.I.T , reported in (2004) 268 ITR 332(Bombay); 3. Assam Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India , reported in (2005) 275 ITR 609 (Gauhati); 4. I.T.O. Vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. reported in (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC) and 5. Northern Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.C.I.T. , reported in (2013) 357 ITR 586 (Delhi) 15. The second limb of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the term “reason to believe” suggests that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person, based on reasonable grounds and though the Assessing Officer may act on direct or substantial evidence, but he cannot act on mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. It is submitted that the grounds or reasons, which led to the formation of belief as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act of 1961 must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment. It is submitted that the expression “reason to believe” does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and it must be held in good faith and cannot be merely pretense or based on extraneous or irrelevant consideration. It is submitted that there must be a “live link” between the material and the formation of belief about the escapement of income. It is submitted that if there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief so that on such reasons no one properly instructed on facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, the conclusion would be inescapable that the Assessing Officer did not have reason to believe that any part of the assessee had escaped his assessment. In support of his contention, he relies on the Judgments rendered in I.T.O Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das , reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. reported in (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati); CIT Vs. Atul Jain & Vinita Jain, reported in (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Delhi); Assam Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2005) 275 ITR 609 (Gauhati) and CIT Vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das , reported in (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC); JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. reported in (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati); CIT Vs. Atul Jain & Vinita Jain, reported in (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Delhi); Assam Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2005) 275 ITR 609 (Gauhati) and CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. , reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). 16. The third limb of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court cannot go into the sufficiency or adequacy of the material and substitute its own opinion for that of the Income Tax Officer on the point as to whether action should be initiated for re-opening assessment. It is not any and every material howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote or far-fetched, which would warrant the formation of belief relating to escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion with that of the Income Tax Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner again refers to the Judgments of Lakshmani Mewal Das (Supra); George Williamson (Assam) Ltd (Supra) and Sesa Sterlite (India) Ltd Vs. A.C.I.T., reported in (2019) 417 ITR 334 (Bombay). 17. The forth limb of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the re-assessment proceedings are to be initiated after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in terms of first proviso to Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, on the ground that the assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment for that year, then the Assessing Officer must state so in the reasons recorded as to what was the material fact that was not disclosed by the assessee and the action should be founded on such reasons. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgments rendered in ACIT Vs. CEAT Ltd , reported in (2022) 449 ITR 171 (SC); CIT Vs. Sonitpur Solvex Ltd. , reported in (2013) 352 ITR 305 (Gauhati); Cedric De Soouza Faria Vs. DCIT , reported in (2018) 400 ITR 30 (Bombay); Usha Exports Vs. ACIT , reported in (2020) 312 CTR 237 (Bombay); Fenner India Ltd. Vs. CEAT Ltd , reported in (2022) 449 ITR 171 (SC); CIT Vs. Sonitpur Solvex Ltd. , reported in (2013) 352 ITR 305 (Gauhati); Cedric De Soouza Faria Vs. DCIT , reported in (2018) 400 ITR 30 (Bombay); Usha Exports Vs. ACIT , reported in (2020) 312 CTR 237 (Bombay); Fenner India Ltd. Vs. DCIT , reported in (2000) 241 ITR 672 (Madras); Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Vs. CIT , reported in (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) and SABH Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT , reported in (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Delhi). 18. The fifth limb of argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the duty cast on the assessee is only to make full and true disclosure of all primary facts. It is not for him to tell the Assessing Officer what inferences, whether of facts or law should be drawn by the Assessing Officer. To refer the meaning “true and full disclosure”, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO , reported in (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC); Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO , reported in (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC). The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the Judgment of this Court rendered in Sonitpur Solvex Ltd (Supra). 19. The sixth limb of argument before this Court is that the information received from the investigation Wing is to the effect that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further enquiry was undertaken by the assessing officer to verify its correctness, relevance or otherwise, then such information per se cannot be said to be a “tangible material” for re-opening of a case. In the present case, the Assessing Officer mechanically accepted the vague information received without any application of mind to conclude that there was reason to believe about escapement of income of the petitioner assessee, on the materials received from the investigation wing. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the Judgment rendered in JCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati) as also Judgments rendered in Chhugamal Raj Pal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors, reported in (1971) 79 ITR 63 (SC); PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd, reported in (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Delhi); PCIT Vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd, reported in (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Gauhati) as also Judgments rendered in Chhugamal Raj Pal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors, reported in (1971) 79 ITR 63 (SC); PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd, reported in (2017) 396 ITR 5 (Delhi); PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. , reported in (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Delhi); CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Brooking Ltd. , reported in (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Delhi); CIT Vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd., reported in (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Delhi) CIT Vs. Atual & Vinita Jain (Supra); ACIT Vs. Dhariya Constructions Co. reported in (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner further questions the impugned re-assessment proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer in the garb of exercising powers under Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 cannot institute a roving enquiry with the object of fishing out material. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer is making an attempt to verify the share capital raised by the assessee company on the ground as most of the allottee companies are paper companies with no genuine business of their own. This is nothing but an attempt by the assessing officer to make a roving and fishing enquiry which is not permissible while exercising powers under Section 147 . In support of his contentions, he has pressed into service the Judgment of Assam Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Supra). 21. The further proposition raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power to re-open a case under Section 147 of the Act, there must “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income from the assessment. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Judgment of Kelvinator of India Ltd (Supra) and Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (Supra). 22. It is further submitted that the writ petition is maintainable against a Notice issued under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT . Notwithstanding the plea of alternative remedy, a writ petition is maintainable to question a notice issued under Section 148 to re- open the assessment in the absence of tangible and cogent materials leading to atleast a prima facie view that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. It is submitted that the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Calcutta Discount Co. It is submitted that the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd (Supra) which had laid down the proposition is still holding its field and has not been diluted since. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the Judgments rendered in Smt. Jaswamt Kaur Sehgal & Ors. Vs. CIT, reported in (2004) 271 ITR 475 (Gauhati) was well as Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT , reported in (2004) 268 ITR 48 (Gujarat). 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits before the Court that disclosure in the Balance Sheet amounts to full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. It is submitted that the Balance Sheet which was filed by the petitioner company disclosed all the true and full materials necessary for assessment on the basis of which the scrutiny assessment were also conducted. Therefore, there was no suppression of materials before the authorities concerned and in the absence thereof the Assessing Officer could not have come to the conclusion that there was escapement of income without arriving at a conclusion as to how the Balance Sheet filed by the petitioner failed to disclose full and true materials necessary for assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ratio of the Judgment rendered in CIT Vs. Corporation Bank Ltd. , reported in (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC) by the Apex Court was considered elaborately and discussed by the Gauhati High Court in Sonitpur Solvex Ltd (Supra). Similar view was adopted by the Gauhati High Court in another Judgment rendered in DCIT Vs. Naginimara Veener and Saw Mills Pvt. Ltd. , reported in (2000) 241 ITR 636 (Gauhati). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the submissions made above and the law laid down by the various Courts including the Apex Court and the Gauhati High Court which have been referred to the proceedings sought to be initiated against the writ petitioners under Section 147 by the Assessing Officer is totally uncalled for and contrary to the provisions of law and the same should there be interfered with, set aside and the impugned Notices as well as the reasons be set aside and quashed and the writ petitions be allowed. 24. Mr. 24. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department strongly disputes to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that in compliance to the notice under section 148 of INCOME TAX ACT dated 31/3/2017, the assessee company filed a return on 27.04.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 showing total income at Rs. 1,64,62,050 and the tax payable on it at Rs. 59,80,122 and consequent to a search and seizure operation conducted in the case, assessee company had filed return under section 153(A) vide acknowledgement No. 345082611040914 dated 04.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs.1,64,62.050/- and tax payable thereon was shown as Rs. 65,76,379/- and accordingly assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(A) was completed on 31.03,2015 determining total income at Rs. 2,61,17,250/- 25. Mr. Keyal further submits that the notice under section 148 issued to the writ petitioner on 31.3.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11 based on reason to believe that income chargeable to the tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 26 . It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the return of income filed on 24.07.2017 in response to the notice under section 148 of INCOME TAX ACT was identical in all respect with the aforesaid revised return filed on 04.09.2014 since the return filed by the assessee company in response to the section 148 proves that the writ petitioner participate in the proceedings. In response to the request of the writ petitioner the reason recorded under section 148 of INCOME TAX ACT , certified copy of the same was supplied to the assesse company dated 07.09.2017. 27. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the assessment officer formed the belief that there is escapement of income tax of income was clearly mentioned therein and necessary approval of the competent authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income Tax had been duly obtained online within the prescribed period. 28. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that notice was issued on 31.03.2017 with prior online approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Guwahati-2 Guwahati vide his approval dated 31.03.2017. The reasons for reopening is clearly mentioned in the approval sent to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax compliance with the mandatory provision of section 151 of the act. The reasons for reopening is clearly mentioned in the approval sent to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax compliance with the mandatory provision of section 151 of the act. The information based on which proceedings under section 147 was initiated was received after the completion of assessment under section 143(3)/153(A). The proceeding was initiated based on the information available to the assessment officer who has jurisdiction to know that income has escaped and reason to believe and has prima facie materials to reopen the case. The information was received as the directorate of investigation which forms the prescribed authority as per section 133 of INCOME TAX ACT and accordingly reason to believe was formed on the basis of information received which cannot be said without jurisdiction. 29. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the information was received after conducting necessary enquiry that the share capital raised by the assessee company requires verification as most of the allotted companies are paper companies with no genuine business of their own. And these companies belong to well known entry operator of Kolkata, Shri Narendra Kr Jain who had sworn on oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loan, etc in lieu of cash commission. A distinctive feature of a paper company is one which is trading only in shares with no other substantial business-oriented transaction as such featuring in its balance sheet and profit and loss account. It is submitted that a paper company is established to involve in ‘jamakharchi’/ accommodation purpose not for any other work. It is submitted that income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment exceeds Rs. 1 lakh and the assessment year falls within the time limit of 6 years. Therefore notice under section 148 was validly issued after taking prior approval of the jurisdictional commissioner of income tax. An independent enquiry is not required for formation of a reason to believe, enquiry is to follow during the course of assessment proceedings, reason to believe was formed on the objective satisfaction of assessing officer based on specific information received from DDIT(Inv), unit-2(2), working under DIT(Inv), Guwahati, which forms prescribed authority under section 133C of the Act. 30. Mr. An independent enquiry is not required for formation of a reason to believe, enquiry is to follow during the course of assessment proceedings, reason to believe was formed on the objective satisfaction of assessing officer based on specific information received from DDIT(Inv), unit-2(2), working under DIT(Inv), Guwahati, which forms prescribed authority under section 133C of the Act. 30. Mr. Keyal further submits that the writ petitioner has already filed return in response under section 148 of the act and participate in the assessment under section 147 in the act. The writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the writ petitioner has alternative remedy by way of filing appeal against assessment order. It is submitted that the notification relied by the writ petitioner is not applicable in the instant case as the same is issued subsequently. The learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the following authorities in support of his contentions: 1. Girish Kumar Agarwalla Vs. The Assistaint Commisisoner of Income Tax , reported in 2023 (0) Supreme (Gau) 1358 ; 2. Rochana Agarwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , reported in 2022 Legal Eagel (ALD) 154 and 3. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, reported in 2014 (1) SCC 603 31. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. The moot questions before this Court firstly is whether the proceedings under Section 147 pursuant to a notice under Section 148 which had been initiated on the basis of information admittedly received from the Director of Investigation, Kolkata, Income Tax Department that the share capital raised by the assessee company relates to certain companies which are found to be companies existing only on paper and are found to be traceable to one Shri Narendra Kr. Jain and who on an affidavit on oath also admitted to this fact can be the basis of re-opening of assessments under Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 without any further enquiry by the assessing officer and secondly whether such information can be considered to be “tangible material” and whether it has a “livelink” for initiating the proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. 32. Before proceeding to examine this question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. The relevant statutory provisions are extracted below: “ 133C. 32. Before proceeding to examine this question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. The relevant statutory provisions are extracted below: “ 133C. (1) The prescribed income-tax authority may, for the purposes of verification of information in its possession relating to any person, issue a notice to such person requiring him, on or before a date to be specified therein, to furnish information or documents verified in the manner specified therein, which may be useful for, or relevant to, any inquiry or proceeding under this Act. (2) Where any information or document has been received in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1), the prescribed income-tax authority may process such information or document and make available the outcome of such processing to the Assessing Officer. [Inserted vide Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016] (3) The Board may make a scheme for centralised issuance of notice and for processing of information or documents and making available the outcome of the processing to the Assessing Officer. [Inserted vide Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017] Explanation. In this section, the term "proceeding" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 133A. Income escaping assessment. 147. [Inserted vide Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017] Explanation. In this section, the term "proceeding" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of the Explanation to section 133A. Income escaping assessment. 147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. Explanation 1.-Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 1.-Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely:- (a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax; (b) where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (ba) where the assessee has failed to furnish a report in respect of any international transaction which he was so required under section 92E; (c) where an assessment has been made, but- (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed; [(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income- tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the income of the assessee exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, or as the case may be, the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return;] (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.-For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148. Explanation 4.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions ons of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. 148 Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. 148. Explanation 4.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions ons of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. 148 Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment. 148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or re- computation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139: Provided that in a case- (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under sub-section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 143, as it stood immediately before the amendment of said sub-section by the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, re- assessment or re-computation as specified in sub-section (2)of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice: Provided further that in a case- (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005, in response to a notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently a notice has been served under clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 143 after the expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143, but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, reassessment or re-computation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after the 1st day of October, 2005 in response to a notice served under this section. (2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so. 149. Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. Explanation. In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or re-computation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. 151. Sanction for issue of notice 151. Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. 151. Sanction for issue of notice 151. (1) No notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself.” 33. The essential facts involved in this case are not disputed. The petitioner submitted its return of income for assessment year 2010- 11 on 04.03.2011 showing a total loss at Rs. 5,17,306/-. Thereafter a search and seizure operation under Section 132 was conducted in respect of the petitioner from 11.07.2012 to 03.09.2012 and the petitioner thereafter submitted its return of income on 08.09.2014 as per provision 153C read with Section 153A. Subsequently, a detailed scrutiny assessment order was passed by the respondent No. 1 on 31.03.2015 under Section 153C/143(3) of the INCOME TAX ACT . After the assessment, the gross total income and total income assessed at NIL by the concerned assessing officer. 34. From the Assessment order, it is seen that the said assessment order was passed on verification and examination of the seized materials and the order was passed with the prior approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-IV. After the assessment, the gross total income and total income assessed at NIL by the concerned assessing officer. 34. From the Assessment order, it is seen that the said assessment order was passed on verification and examination of the seized materials and the order was passed with the prior approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-IV. Thereafter notice dated 31.03.2017 under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11 was issued by the respondent No. 1 putting the petitioner to notice that there are reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax have escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 . Pursuant to this notice, the petitioner as per the provisions of the statute filed its returns showing NIL taxes. Subsequent thereto by communication dated 23.05.2017, return of income was submitted by the petitioner on 27.04.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11, whereafter certain further information was called for requiring the petitioner to attend office either in person or by authorized representative on 14.06.2017 and to produce all accounts and documents. The petitioner assessee by communication dated 07.09.2017, upon receipt of the notice under Section 148 , requested the Assessing Officer to furnish the grounds on which the assessment order under Section 148 was to be passed. These grounds were furnished to the assessee by communication dated 07.09.2017. The grounds as furnished by the Revenue are extracted below: “Reason recorded u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961:- As per information, it is found that M/s Mukund Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (PAN: AAFCM4378R) raised its capital to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- by allotment of shares, with allotment a face value of Rs. 10 and premium of Rs. 90/-. As per the information received most of the allottee companies are paper companies which exist only on paper with no genuine business of their own. As per the data prepared by DIT(Inv.), Kolkata most of these companies are belong to Shri Narendra Kr. Jain. Shri Narendra Kumar Jain during the course of survey conducted on 11.04.2014 had shorn under oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loan etc. So, I have reason to believe that the assessee’s income to Rs. Jain. Shri Narendra Kumar Jain during the course of survey conducted on 11.04.2014 had shorn under oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loan etc. So, I have reason to believe that the assessee’s income to Rs. 1,51,00,000/- chargeable to tax for the F.Y 2009-10 with relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act, 1961. Since the case is beyond four years, the approval for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is sought from the Pr. CIT, Guwahati-2, Guwahati through proper channel.” 35. From the grounds furnished to the assessee, it is evident that the information received was on the basis of the data prepared by DIT(Investigation), Kolkata. As per the information, the assessee company raised capital to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- by allotment of shares with allotment face value of Rs. 10 and premium of Rs. 90/-. As per the information received, most of the allottee companies are paper companies which exists on paper with no genuine business of their own. As per the data made available by the DIT(Inv), Kolkata, most of these companies belonged to Shri Narendra Kr. Jain. Shri Jain during the course of survey conducted on 11.04.2014 had sworn under oath that he is an accommodation entry provider which provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loan etc. As such the Assessing Officer had recorded reason to believe that the assessee’s income of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- is chargeable to tax for the financial year 2009-10 which is relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 and the same had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 and that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. The reasons also revealed that since the case is beyond four years, approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 is sought for from the Pr. CIT, Guwahati-2, Guwahati through proper channel. 36. Upon receipt of the grounds for issuance of notice under Section 147 , the petitioner assessee filed a detailed objection. Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.2017, the Assessing Officer rejected the objections raised and concluded that the proceedings under Section 147 may validly initiated. CIT, Guwahati-2, Guwahati through proper channel. 36. Upon receipt of the grounds for issuance of notice under Section 147 , the petitioner assessee filed a detailed objection. Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.2017, the Assessing Officer rejected the objections raised and concluded that the proceedings under Section 147 may validly initiated. 37. The findings in the impugned order dated 24.10.2017 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner are extracted below: “ Findings with reasoning and conclusion: The submission of the assessee is considered thoroughly. The purpose and object of the law behind initiation of proceedings u/s 147 is to protect the interest of venue by bringing to tax the escaped income and “reason to believe” requires relevant materials to assume that income has escaped assessment. The reasons recorded for re opening are absolutely and undoubtedly based on rational, relevant and material facts related to the case of the assessee and thus, reopening u/s 147 is as per law and justice. Reliance is placed the case of Pr. CIT vs Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxman 409 (Delhi) , Where the Hon’ble Delhi High court held that while it is true that the court is conscious that the reassessment Notice should not have been routinely issued, at the same time, the nature of power is wide enough that when there is an escapement of income and the revenue has information ruling that this escapement is also relatable to suppression of material facts ( which could include false claims) the power to reopen concluded assessments can validly be exercised. The consideration which ought to weigh with the revenue and are considered valid are the existence of tangible material or information — in the light of the judgement in CIT vs Kelvinator of India [2010] 320 ITR 561/187 Taxman 312(SC) The purpose and objective of law is crystal clear and further well settled also as per the below mentioned judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme court in CIT vs Rajesh Thaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd. (161 Taxman 316) 2007 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex court held that – Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word ‘reason’ in the phrase ‘reason to believe’ will mean cause or justification. The word ‘reason’ in the phrase ‘reason to believe’ will mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has Cause or justification to know or suppose that income has escaped assessment, it can be said to have ‘reason to believe’ that an income has escaped assessment. The said expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. The function of the Assessing Officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an in-built idea of fairness to taxpayers. As observed by the Supreme Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore. Co. Ltd. V. ITO [1991]191 ITR 662 , for initiation of action u/s147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time.), fulfilment of two requisite condition in that regard is essential. The final outcome of the proceedings was not relevant. What was relevant was the existence of reasons to make the ITO believe that there had been under-assessment of the assessee’s income for a particular year. At the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief. Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage. This is so because the formation of belief by the Assessing Officer is within the realm of subjective satisfaction. ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.[1996]217 ITR597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. IT0[1999]236 ITR 34 (SC). On careful perusal of the judgements of the above two cases , it is clear that the then AO was totally justified in invoking the proceedings u/s 147 in the instant case. His ‘reason to believe’ was based on concrete facts and he recorded the same in a clear and unambiguous manner. He took due cognisance of the spirit of the statute as stressed upon in the Apex Court order in Central Provinces Manganese ore co Itd v ITO [1991]191itr 662. His formation of the belief was also very much within the realm of subjective satisfaction as emphasised in ITO v. Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.[1996]217 ITR597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO[1999]236 ITR 34 (SC). Further , the assessee is totally wrong to suggest that he was deprived of the fairness on the part of the AO. His formation of the belief was also very much within the realm of subjective satisfaction as emphasised in ITO v. Dalurband Coal Co. (P.) Ltd.[1996]217 ITR597 (SC); Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO[1999]236 ITR 34 (SC). Further , the assessee is totally wrong to suggest that he was deprived of the fairness on the part of the AO. In this regard and as the above facts suggest the AO administered the relevant statute with absolute “solicitude for the public exchequer with an in-built idea of fairness to taxpayers” which is his prime duty as per the verdict of the Apex Court in CIT vs Rajesh Thaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd. (161 Taxman 316) 2007 (SC). The decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above squarely applies to the present case It may also be stated here that as per provisions of section 147 Explanation 2 (ca) to section 147, states as follows- Quote “where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income tax authority, under sub section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed by the assessing officer that the income of the assessee exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, or as the case may be, the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; ‘unquote. In the instant case, information has been received from the Directorate of investigation that the company M/S Mukund Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd has raised capital with allotment on 31.03.2010 to the tune of Rs 1,51,00,000/-, with face value Rs 10/- and premium Rs 90/-. Most of the allottee companies for that particular corresponding year w.r.to M/S Mukund Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd are paper companies which exist only on paper with no genuine business of their own. Most of the allottee companies belong to well known entry operator of Kolkata, Sri. Narendra kumar Jain who had sworn under oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loans etc in lieu of cash commission Therefore, proceedings u/s 147 was validly initiated and as per provisions of the I.T. Act 1961.” 38. Most of the allottee companies belong to well known entry operator of Kolkata, Sri. Narendra kumar Jain who had sworn under oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loans etc in lieu of cash commission Therefore, proceedings u/s 147 was validly initiated and as per provisions of the I.T. Act 1961.” 38. As such the only ground for re-opening of the assessments and initiation of proceedings under Section 147 is the data received from the DIT(Inv), Kolkata. 39. Perusal of the pleadings reveal that the Assessing Officer by Communication No. F.No. AAFCM4378R/DCIT/C-4/GHY/2017- 18/1794 dated 30.10.2017 (Annexure-19) had sought for several documents. For the purposes of deciding this issue, this communication is relevant and therefore the contents of the communication is extracted below: “GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI Aayakar Bhawan, 502, Fifth Floor, G.S. Road, Guwahati ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ F.No. AAFCM4378R/DCIT/C-4/GHY/2017-18/1794 Dated 30.10.2017 To M/S Mukund Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Royal Arcade, B. Barroah Road, Guwahati: 781 007 Sir/Madam, Sub:- Assessment proceeding for the A.Y. 2010-11-requisition of information/documents-regarding Please refer to the above. In connection with the above assessment proceeding, you are requested to furnish/produce the following details/documents. 1. Bank statement of all Bank Accounts for the relevant period along with bank reconciliation statement if any. 2. Whether additional depreciation was claimed on new Plant & Machinery acquired and put to use? Also, submit bills/vouchers in support of your claim. 3. Furnish details in respect of the following companies from whom you have raised share capital during the previous year. (i) Tradecom Pvt. Led. (ii) Star Delcom Pvt. Ltd. The details should be furnished with reference to following- a) Copy of application form for allotment of shares and share application money received with date of receipt and mode of transaction. b) no. of shares allotted to each company. c) Copy of letter of allotment. d) Amount received in- (i) Face value (ii) Share premium per company e) Give details of mode of transaction-whether through bank or by cash along with documentary evidence. Your case has been re-fixed for hearing on 07.11.2017 at 11.30 Am on which date you are requested to furnish the above details. A notice u/s 142(1) is enclosed for compliance. Yours faithfully Sd/- [Ms. Nibedita Gupta] Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati 40. Your case has been re-fixed for hearing on 07.11.2017 at 11.30 Am on which date you are requested to furnish the above details. A notice u/s 142(1) is enclosed for compliance. Yours faithfully Sd/- [Ms. Nibedita Gupta] Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati 40. Although the petitioner had pleaded his case extensively on the provisions of Section 147 , 148 and 153 and has urged on the shortcomings of the revenue to the effect that the mandate under the relevant sections have not been followed, the writ petition does not contain any material to show that the petitioner had responded to the communication dated 30.10.2017 which is enclosed as Annexure-19 to the writ petition. This communication reflects that inter alia the following information with supporting documents were sought for: “a) Copy of application form for allotment of shares and share application money received with date of receipt and mode of transaction. b) no. of shares allotted to each company. c) Copy of letter of allotment. d) Amount received in- (i) Face value (ii) Share premium per company e) Give details of mode of transaction-whether through bank or by cash along with documentary evidence.” 41. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner sought for adjournment by Email dated 10.11.2017 a copy of which was also sent by post. However, there is no averment found in the writ petition as to whether these information as sought for by the Assessing Officer were furnished. 42. As discussed above in the forgoing paragraphs, the materials available before the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessments as is evident from the grounds furnished to the assessee is that the petitioner assessee company had raised share capital with allotment on 31.03.2010 to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- with face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs. 90/- and most of the allottee companies with regard to the capital raised for that particular assessment year are paper companies which exists only on paper with no genuine business of their own and most of these allottee companies belonged to one Shri Narendra Kr. Jain who is well known accommodation entry operator of Kolkata and which fact was sworn on oath by the said Shri Narendra Kr. Jain. Shri Narendra Kr. Jain provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loans etc. in lieu cash commissions. 43. Jain who is well known accommodation entry operator of Kolkata and which fact was sworn on oath by the said Shri Narendra Kr. Jain. Shri Narendra Kr. Jain provides bogus accommodation entries, bogus unsecured loans etc. in lieu cash commissions. 43. In the opinion of the Court, this information sought for by the Revenue from the assessee appears to be crucial information which will reflect whether the grounds of belief on which the proceedings under Section 147 has been initiated are found to be germane and whether it provides a vital connection thereto. However, since there are no avernments made in the writ petitions, it is not known as to whether these information were furnished before the authorities. Since the proceedings came to be initiated by the Revenue by issuance of the communication dated 30.10.2017, the writ petitioner approached this Court and filed the present proceedings. This Court while issuing notice on 20.11.2017 has stayed the further proceedings pertaining to the impugned notice under Section 148 . 44. In order to examine the grounds urged before this Court regarding the correctness of the proceedings initiated, it is relevant to refer to Section 147 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. The Section 147 prior to its amendment in the year 1987 reads as under: “ 147. Income escaping assessment .—If (a) the Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under Section 139 for any assessment year to the Income Tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income Tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as “the relevant assessment year”).” Thereafter, the said Section underwent an amendment with effect from 01.04.1989. Post the said amendment, Section 147 reads as under: “ 147. Income escaping assessment .—If the assessing officer, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as “the relevant assessment year”).” 45. From the above, it is seen that prior to its amendment, the Assessing Officer was required to have the reason to believe that by omission or failure on the part of an assessee to file returns under Section 139 for the relevant assessment year or having filed failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for such assessment that the Income Tax Officer had reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year pursuant to information in his possession and therefore, the concerned Income Tax Officer may seek to re-open the assessment. 46. However, pursuant to the amendment brought in with effect from 01.04.1989, the only requirement for re-opening the assessments by an Assessing Officer, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is that the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any assessment year and that he should assess or reassess such income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment and which came to his notice subsequently. It is evident that pursuant to the amendment brought in to the statute after 01.04.1989, the scope to re-open an assessment is wider than it was before prior to the amendment. It is thus seen that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may re-assess such an income in the course of the proceedings under Section 147 which the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently. It is thus seen that if the assessing officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may re-assess such an income in the course of the proceedings under Section 147 which the Assessing Officer has reasons to believe has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently. Once the Assessing Officer comes to such a finding and records such a reason then before making the assessment or re-assessment as the case may be under Section 147 , proper notice under Section 148 must be issued calling upon the assessee is to file a return of its income in the prescribed form. The propositions which are espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons must provide a live link for the purposes of re-opening the assessment are well settled, this Court respectfully accepts the propositions laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court in the Judgments which are cited. 47. Let us now deal with the submissions rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 48. The 1 st proposition is to the effect that recording of reasons within the meaning of Section 147 before issuance of Notice under Section 148 is mandatory and such reasons are subject to judicial scrutiny. In the facts of the case, this issue need not be addressed at length because the reasons had been recorded by the Revenue which are enclosed to the writ petition itself as Annexure-15. Consequently, the Judgments which are pressed into service in support of the first proposition is also not in dispute and therefore, there is no quarrel with the ratio laid down by this Court in Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (Supra) and the other Judgments pressed that the reasons must be recorded. The reasons having been recorded in the present proceedings and in that view of the matter no further discussions are required in respect of the first proposition urged by the assessee writ petitioner. 49. The 2 nd and 3 rd propositions urged are that “reason to believe” must be the belief of an honest and reasonable person, based on reasons though the Assessing Officer may act on direct or substantial evidence, but it cannot be on the basis of mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. 49. The 2 nd and 3 rd propositions urged are that “reason to believe” must be the belief of an honest and reasonable person, based on reasons though the Assessing Officer may act on direct or substantial evidence, but it cannot be on the basis of mere suspicion, gossip or rumor. The reasons to believe do not mean purely subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. In this context, it is again necessary to refer to the amendments brought in to the Section 147 after 01.04.1989. Pursuant to the said amendment brought, the only ground for proceeding for re-opening of an assessment is that Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. In the present proceedings, the information available with the Assessing Officer is the data made available from the Director of Investigation, Kolkata to the effect that the share capital raised to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- has been found to be allotted to some bogus companies which exists only on paper with no real business etc. and these bogus companies are nothing but accommodation entries in lieu of cash commissions which are furnished by one Shri Narendra Kr. Jain who is found to an accommodation provider and therefore, this information having come to the possession of the Assessing Officer, the proceedings were sought to be initiated under Section 147 by issuance of a Notice under Section 148 . The data made available to the Assessing Officer by the DIT, Kolkata appears to be the “reasons to believe” for the assessing officer to initiate proceedings under Section 147 . Pursuant to approval from higher authorities as required as per the statute, notice under Section 148 was issued. Although the petitioner submitted its reply, the quarries raised by the assessing officer do not appear to have been answered in the reply furnished. Even before this Court, no grounds or materials have been placed to show that prima facie the “reasons to believe” was misplaced. 50. Although the petitioner submitted its reply, the quarries raised by the assessing officer do not appear to have been answered in the reply furnished. Even before this Court, no grounds or materials have been placed to show that prima facie the “reasons to believe” was misplaced. 50. In so far as the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th , 7 th , 8 th and 10 th propositions are to the effect that the assessee must have failed to disclose fully and truly all materials necessary for the assessment and then the Assessing Officer must state so in the reasons to be recorded as to what material fact was not disclosed by the assessee for the Assessing Officer to enable into proceed under Section 147 . The further contention is that these materials available must provide a live link to the allegations for re-opening of the assessments. In this context, it is discussed in the forgoing paragraphs that pursuant to the amendment brought into Section 147 , the scope and the ambit of the powers of the Assessing Officer under Section 147 has been widened. It is not in dispute that the information available to the assessing officer is on the basis of the data supplied by the Director of Investigation, Kolkata regarding the share capital raised by the petitioner by making bogus entries. These information prima facie cannot be said to be information not germen for re-opening of assessments or that it does not provide a “live link” for re-opening of the assessment. 51. As discussed in the forgoing paragraphs pursuant to the amendments made on 01.04.1989, the Assessing Officer can re-open the assessments if the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. It has to be held that pursuant to the amendment brought into Section 147 and the powers of the Assessing Officer being widened by the statute, it is evident that the Assessing Officer can proceed under Section 147 if he has reasons to believe which are recorded in writing and which are furnished to the assessee on such demand made. 52. 52. From the materials placed before the Court the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are on the basis of the data available from the Director of Investigation, Kolkata that for the relevant previous year to the corresponding assessment year, the petitioner assessee company has raised an amount of Rs.1,51,00,000/- as share capital by allotment of shares to some bogus companies. These bogus companies as per the Date furnished by the DIT, Kolkata are found to be only inexistence in paper and the investigation has been carried on the basis of the statements recorded on oath by One Shri Narendra Kr. Jain who stated on oath that he is an accommodation provider who provides for bogus accommodation in lieu of cash commission. This information is recorded in the grounds which were also for initiating the proceedings under Section 147 furnished to the petitioner. 53. It is seen that pursuant to receipt of the grounds, the petitioner filed its reply before the Assessing Officer questioning the proceedings sought to be initiated. But what is seen from perusal of the grounds furnished by the assessing officer and the reply submitted by the petitioner is that in the grounds furnished by the assessing officer to the assessee writ petitioner, the grounds for re- opening of the assessments under Section 147 had clearly stated that as per the information received the petitioner assessee company has raised its capital to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- by allotment of shares with allotment of face value of Rs. 10/- and premium of Rs.90/-. As per the information received, most of allottee company are paper companies which exists only on paper with no genuine business of their own. As per the data prepared by the DIT(Inv), Kolkata most of the companies belonged to one Shri Narendra Kr. Jain and Shri Narendra Kr. Jain in the course of the survey conducted on 11.04.2014 had sworn under oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provide bogus accommodation entries and bogus unsecured loans etc and accordingly the assessing officer recorded its grounds for the reasons to believe that the assessee’s income to Rs. Jain and Shri Narendra Kr. Jain in the course of the survey conducted on 11.04.2014 had sworn under oath that he is an accommodation entry provider who provide bogus accommodation entries and bogus unsecured loans etc and accordingly the assessing officer recorded its grounds for the reasons to believe that the assessee’s income to Rs. 1,51,00,000/- chargeable to tax for the financial year 2009-10 and relevant to assessment year 2010-11 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 and therefore it was considered to be a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. In the reasons recorded, it was also mentioned that since the case is beyond four years approval for issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 is sought from the Pr. CIT, Guwahati-II through proper channel. 54. Coming to the reply filed dated 09.10.2011 which is subsequent to furnishing of the grounds recorded by the revenue, it is seen that the although the grounds recorded have been reflected in the reply however, no material was placed in support of its contention that the allegation made against the writ petitioner assessee company regarding escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- which was alleged to have been raised a share capital by allotment to some bogus companies is not correct. The reply does not reveal that any reference to any such material have been referred to or relied upon by the assessee questioning the correctness of the grounds leading to the reasons to believe for initiating proceedings under Section 147 . Even in the present writ petition, no materials have been placed before this Court nor any averments are made in the writ petition to justify the contentions of the assessee writ petitioner that atleast prima facie the recording of the grounds for the reasons to believe by the assessing officer are incorrect on facts and/or on the records. Under such circumstances, these arguments made by the petitioner will have to be rejected. 55. Under such circumstances, these arguments made by the petitioner will have to be rejected. 55. The contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that whatever materials were furnished or filed by the petitioners and the same having been accepted by the assessing officer unless there are strong grounds to suspect that income has escaped relating to the relevant assessment year, there is no scope for the respondent to proceed for initiation of the proceedings under Section 147 . It is urged before this Court that the returns having been duly filed once showing it to be NIL returns and also pursuant to the search and seizure proceedings carried on, a similar NIL return having been filed and which was duly accepted by the assessing officer, there is no occasion subsequently to re-open the assessments on the basis of the said materials which were already before the assessing officer and the same having been filed. 56. The question urged before this Court in the present proceedings on the facts pleaded is that in the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer leading to escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- and pursuant to which the assessing officer is proposing to re-open the assessment is based on the information subsequently made available to the assessing officer by the Director of Investigation, Kolkata and whether such information is discernable from the returns filed by the assessee and whether such reasons/information provide a live link for initiation of proceeding under Section 147 . 57. The expression “information” is not defined under the INCOME TAX ACT . This expression “information” came up for consideration before the Apex Court in L&T Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 780 . The Apex Court in that matter was also confronted with the issued as to the meaning of the term “information”. The apex Court held that the expression “information” means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or parties or as to law relating to and/or having a bearing on the assessment. It comprehends not only variety of factors including information from external sources of any kind but also the discovery of new facts or information available in the record of assessment not previously noticed or investigated. It comprehends not only variety of factors including information from external sources of any kind but also the discovery of new facts or information available in the record of assessment not previously noticed or investigated. The expression “information” means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or parties or as to law relating to and/or after bearing on the assessment. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are extracted below: “26. It is also pertinent to understand the meaning of the word “information” in its true sense. According to Oxford Dictionary, “information” means facts told, heard or discovered about somebody/something. The Law Lexicon describes the term “information” as the act or process of informing, communication or reception of knowledge. The expression “information” means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or parties or as to law relating to and/or having a bearing on the assessment. We agree that a mere change of opinion or having second thought about it by the competent authority on the same set of facts and materials on the record does not constitute “information” for the purposes of the State Act. But the word “information” used in the aforesaid section is of the widest amplitude and should not be construed narrowly. It comprehends not only variety of factors including information from external sources of any kind but also the discovery of new facts or information available in the record of assessment not previously noticed or investigated. Suppose a mistake in the original order of assessment is not discovered by the assessing officer, on further scrutiny, if it came to the notice of another assessor or even by a subordinate or a superior officer, it would be considered as information disclosed to the incumbent officer. If the mistake itself is not extraneous to the record and the informant gathered the information from the record, the immediate source of information to the officer in such circumstances is in one sense extraneous to the record. It will be information in his possession within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act. In such cases of obvious mistakes apparent on the face of the record of assessment, that record itself can be a source of information, if that information leads to a discovery or belief that there has been an escape of assessment or under-assessment or wrong assessment. 32. In such cases of obvious mistakes apparent on the face of the record of assessment, that record itself can be a source of information, if that information leads to a discovery or belief that there has been an escape of assessment or under-assessment or wrong assessment. 32. The expression “information” means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or parties or as to law relating to and/or after bearing on the assessment. We are of the clear view that on the basis of information received and if the assessing officer is satisfied that reasonable ground exists to believe, then in that case the power of the assessing authority extends to reopening of assessment, if for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of the business of the dealer has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed and the assessment in such a case would be valid even if the materials, on the basis of which the earlier assessing authority passed the order and the successor assessing authority proceeded, were same. The question still is as to whether in the present case, the assessing authority was satisfied or not.” 58. Coming to the expressing “reasons to believe”, in CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., reported (2008) 14 SCC 208, the Apex Court held that the word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification. If the assessing officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. The function of the assessing officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. The relevant paragraph of the said Judgment is extracted below: ”19. Section 147 authorises and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification. The relevant paragraph of the said Judgment is extracted below: ”19. Section 147 authorises and permits the assessing officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word “reason” in the phrase “reason to believe” would mean cause or justification. If the assessing officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment. The expression cannot be read to mean that the assessing officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. The function of the assessing officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. 59. In CIT v. M.R. Shah Logistics (P) Ltd., reported in (2022) 14 SCC 101 , the Apex Court held that Section 147 of the Act authorises the reopening of any assessment of a previous year [ “147. Income escaping assessment.—If any income chargeable to tax, in the case of an assessee, has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the assessing officer may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. Referring to the Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO , reported in 1960 SCC OnLine SC 10, it was held that there is a duty cast on the assessee for disclosing all primary facts relevant to the question. As to what can be the valid ground for reopening of the assessment, the Apex Court held that the “reasons to believe” must be based on objective materials and on a reasonable view. Referring to the Apex Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das reported in (1976) 3 SCC 757 it was held that once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income Tax Officer to form the belief that was material for escapement of income, it will be sufficient to clothe him with a jurisdiction to issue the notice. However, whether these grounds are adequate or not is not a subject matter of the court to investigate. The sufficiency of the grounds which induce the income Tax officer to act is therefore not a justiciable ground. However, whether these grounds are adequate or not is not a subject matter of the court to investigate. The sufficiency of the grounds which induce the income Tax officer to act is therefore not a justiciable ground. Again referring to the Judgment of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs. ITO , reported in (1993) 4 SCC 77 , it was held that after consideration of the earlier precedents on this subject, the Apex Court concluded that a valid re-opening is one, preceded by specific, reliable and relevant information and that the sufficiency of such reasons is not subject to judicial review and the only caveat being that the Court can examine the record, if such material existed. It was held that the facts disclosed in the return, if found later to be unfounded or false, can always be on the basis of a re-opening of assessment. The Apex Court held that where the assessing officer has “reason to believe” that income had escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, after the amendment of 01.04.1989, the power to reopen, conferred on the assessing officer is much wider. It was held that the basis for valid re-opening of assessment should be availability of tangible material which can lead the assessing officer scrutinize the return for the previous assessment year in question to determine whether the proceedings under Section 147 is called for. The Apex Court also held that the “tangible material” which the assessing officer come by will enable it to re-open an assessment meaning thereby that the entire assessment (for the year concerned) is at large and the Revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean slate as it were. The possibility that the assessee may have a reasonable explanation is not a ground for the High Court quashing a notice under Section 147 . As long as there are objective tangible material (in the form of documents, relevant to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment of M.R. Shah Logistics(Supra) are extracted below: “ 18. Section 147 of the Act authorises the reopening of any assessment of a previous year [ “ 147. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment of M.R. Shah Logistics(Supra) are extracted below: “ 18. Section 147 of the Act authorises the reopening of any assessment of a previous year [ “ 147. Income escaping assessment .—If any income chargeable to tax, in the case of an assessee, has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the assessing officer may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the assessing officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, irrespective of the fact that the provisions of Section 148 -A have not been complied with.” ] . Section 148 , which contains the conditions for reopening assessments, including the limitation period within which notices can be issued, by its proviso, enacts that: “Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the assessing officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the assessing officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice.” 19. Long ago, in its decision reported as Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 10 : (1961) 2 SCR 241 : AIR 1961 SC 372 ] this Court had underscored the obligation of every assessee to make a true and full disclosure and said that : (AIR p. 376, para 9) “9. There can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all the primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessing authority lies on the assessee.” The Court further held that once the duty is discharged, it is up to the assessing officer to inquire further and draw the necessary inferences while completing the assessment. 20. As to what can be the valid grounds for reopening an assessment has been the subject-matter of several decisions of this Court. 20. As to what can be the valid grounds for reopening an assessment has been the subject-matter of several decisions of this Court. In ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das, (1976) 3 SCC 757 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 402 : (1976) 3 SCR 956 ] this Court held that the “reasons to believe” must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view. The Court held as follows : (SCC p. 763, para 8) “8. The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief contemplated by Section 147 (a) of the Act must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Once there exist reasonable grounds for the Income Tax Officer to form the above belief, that would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice. Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the Court to investigate. The sufficiency of grounds which induce the Income Tax Officer to act is, therefore, not a justiciable issue. It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the Income Tax Officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure. The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of reasons for the belief. The expression “reason to believe” does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income Tax Officer. The reason must be held in good faith. It cannot be merely a pretence. It is open to the Court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section. To this limited extent, the action of the Income Tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law.” 21. To this limited extent, the action of the Income Tax Officer in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law.” 21. In Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 4 SCC 77 : (1993) 1 SCR Supp 28] , after reviewing the previous case law, and concluding that a valid reopening is one, preceded by specific, reliable and relevant information, and that the sufficiency of such reasons is not subject to judicial review the only caveat being that the court can examine the record, if such material existed, it was held that the facts disclosed in the return, if found later to be unfounded or false, can always be the basis of a reopening of assessment : (SCC p. 96, para 26) “26. … appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when that falsity comes to notice, to turn around and say ‘you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing’. It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude.” 22. A three-Judge Bench, of this Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 723 : (2010) 1 SCR 768 ] after considering the previous decisions, restated the correct position as follows : (SCC p. 725, paras 5-7) “5. … where the assessing officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. Therefore, post-1-4-1989, power to reopen is much wider. However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe”.… …. Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the assessing officer to reopen assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The assessing officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. 7. The assessing officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. 7. One must treat the concept of “change of opinion” as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the assessing officer. Hence, after 1-4- 1989, assessing officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” 29. Another aspect which should not be lost sight of is that the information or “tangible material” which the assessing officer comes by enabling reopening of an assessment, means that the entire assessment (for the year concerned) is at large; the Revenue would then get to examine the returns for the previous year, on a clean slate as it were. Therefore, to hold as the High Court did, in this case, that since the assessee may have a reasonable explanation, is not a ground for quashing a notice under Section 147 . As long as there is objective tangible material (in the form of documents, relevant to the issue) the sufficiency of that material cannot dictate the validity of the notice.” 60. In ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (1997) 10 SCC 68 , the Apex Court held that there must be relevant material before the assessing officer upon which he must reasonably and rationally form the requisite opinion. It was held that that the formation of belief by the Income Tax Officer is essentially within his subjective satisfaction. In the said matter, the proceedings under Section 147 was initiated on the basis of the letter of the Chief Mining Officer and the question before the Apex Court is whether the said letter can be construed to be relevant material upon which the Income Tax Officer can form a requisite belief. The Apex Court concluded that the said letter cannot be construed to be not relevant material or the basis on which the Income Tax Officer could not have reasonably formed the requisite belief. The Apex Court concluded that the said letter cannot be construed to be not relevant material or the basis on which the Income Tax Officer could not have reasonably formed the requisite belief. It was held that whether the facts stated in the letter are true or not is not the concerned at that stage. It may well be that the assessee may be able to establish the said facts stated in the said letter to be incorrect but that conclusion can only come after making a necessary enquiry. At the stage of issuance of notice, the question is whether there was relevant material and whether a reasonable person would have form the requisite belief. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment is extracted below: “ 3. It is well settled by various decisions of this Court that the notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 can be issued only where the Income Tax Officer has reason to believe that the income, profits or gains chargeable to tax had been underassessed or escaped assessment and further that such escapement or underassessment was occasioned by reason of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that year. [We are not concerned with clause (b) of Section 147 here but only with clause (a).] In other words, there must be relevant material before the assessing officer upon which he must reasonably and rationally form the requisite opinion (belief). The question, therefore, is whether the letter of the Chief Mining Officer aforesaid does not constitute relevant material upon which the Income Tax Officer could have formed the requisite belief? It must be remembered that the formation of belief by the Income Tax Officer is essentially within his subjective satisfaction. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that we cannot say that the letter aforesaid does not constitute relevant material or that on that basis, the Income Tax Officer could not have reasonably formed the requisite belief. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that we cannot say that the letter aforesaid does not constitute relevant material or that on that basis, the Income Tax Officer could not have reasonably formed the requisite belief. The letter shows that a joint inspection was conducted in the colliery of the respondent on 9-1-1967 by the officers of the Mining Department in the presence of the representatives of the assessee and according to the opinion of the officers of the Mining Department, there was under-reporting of the raising figure to the extent indicated in the said letter. The report is made by a Government Department and that too after conducting a joint inspection. It gives a reasonably specific estimate of the excessive coal- mining said to have been done by the respondent over and above the figure disclosed by it in its returns. Whether the facts stated in the letter are true or not is not the concern at this stage. It may well be that the assessee may be able to establish that the facts stated in the said letter are not true but that conclusion can be arrived at only after making the necessary enquiry. At the stage of the issuance of the notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material, as stated above, on which a reasonable person could have formed the requisite belief. Since we are unable to say that the said letter could not have constituted the basis for forming such a belief, it cannot be said that the issuance of notice was invalid. Inasmuch as, as a result of our order, the reassessment proceedings have now to go on, we do not and we ought not to express any opinion on merits.” 61. In Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. ITO , reported in (1991) 4 SCC 166 , the Apex Court held that there are two conditions to confer jurisdiction under Section 147 (a) of the Act which are required to be satisfied. The first one is that the Income Tax Officer must have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has been under-assessed and such under assessment has occurred by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials necessary for the assessment. The first one is that the Income Tax Officer must have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has been under-assessed and such under assessment has occurred by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials necessary for the assessment. It may be mentioned herein that the interpretation of Section 147 was prior to the amendment brought in 1989. It was held that the final outcome of the proceedings is not relevant. What is relevant is the existence of reasons for the Income Tax Officer to believe that there has been under-assessment for the assessee’s income for a particular year. 62. In the present proceedings, the returns which were stated to have been filed before the assessing officer and copies of which are enclosed to the petition does not reflect the breakup of the share capital distributed and/or the allottees of the share holders. This is generally not available in the balance-sheet or the other accompanying financial statements furnished unless these are specifically called for. The income tax being a self-assessment tax, ordinarily whatever returns are filed by the assessee, the same are generally accepted unless the same are not filed as per the proper procedure prescribed. On the basis of financial markers which the Central Processing Unit of the Department considers it necessary cases are picked up for scrutiny assessment. Nevertheless while it is available to the assessee to submit the relevant documents and financial papers through to its disclosures making a true and full disclosure, the question regarding truthfulness and falsehood of transactions reflected in the return can only be examined during original assessment and not at a later stage subsequent thereto has been held by the Apex Court to be too broad and general in nature and would thus be violence to the legislative intent of the plain phraseology of Section 147 (A) and Section 148 and is against the settled law. The purpose and intent of the provisions have to be looked into. The purpose and intent of the provisions have to be looked into. One of the purposes of Section 147 appears to be to ensure that a person cannot getaway by willfully making a false and untrue statement at the time of original assessment and when falsity comes to the notice of the assessing officer then the assessee cannot be permitted to turn around and say that “you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you cannot do nothing”. It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude. In this context the reference to the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 77 has already been made in the foregoing paragraphs. 63. From the law discussed above, it is seek that the precondition for incoming powers under Sections 147 /148 is the belief of the assessing officer that there are materials for the belief that income had escaped assessment. This belief must be taken down in writing and there must be tangible materials which have a live link for entertaining such a belief. Once these preconditions are satisfied then the assessing officer can proceed under Sections 147 /148 of the Act. The possibility that this belief may ultimately be unfounded will not be a ground to interfere the notice under Section 148 . Further the reasons must also be supplied to the assesse. 64. Under such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that once the returns have been filed and have been accepted and the same cannot be re-opened at any stage would be contrary to the very provision of Section 147 more particularly after the amendment with effect from 01.04.1989 whereby the scope of re-opening on assessment by the Assessing Officer stood widened giving powers to the assessing officer to re-open assessment if the assessing officer has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The only requirement is that of recording of such reasons as well as taking the statutory precautions for sanction by higher authority and furnishing a copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. All these steps have been duly undertaken by the Revenue. 65. The only requirement is that of recording of such reasons as well as taking the statutory precautions for sanction by higher authority and furnishing a copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. All these steps have been duly undertaken by the Revenue. 65. As have been discussed in the forgoing paragraphs, the reply filed by the assessee also does not disclose any material prima facie come to a conclusion that the reason to believe enabling the assessing officer to proceed for re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 is found to be prima facie uncalled for or unwarranted. In that view of the matter the contentions raised by the petitioner stands rejected. In view of the discussions and conclusions arrived at by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, the Judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be discussed. 66. In so far the proposition 9 is concerned that notwithstanding the existence of alternative remedy by way of an appeal, writ is maintainable is required to examine in the light of the various pronouncements rendered by the Apex Court. In Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, reported in 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 724 , the Apex Court held that ordinarily where the statutory remedy is available, the writ court ought not to exercise its powers in judicial review. Same view is also reiterated in a subsequent Judgments whereby the Apex Court held that where alternative remedy is available, it is only under the exceptions culled out that a judicial review is permissible. These exceptions have been culled out in a Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Ors. Vs. Commercial Steel Ltd. , reported in (2022) 16 SCC 447 are extracted below: (i) breach of fundamental rights; (ii) Violation of principles of natural justice; (iii) Excess of jurisdication; (iv) challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislature It is only under these circumstances that writ is maintainable. 67. While, the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the existence the alternative remedy being power for exercise of writ jurisdiction or exercise of judicial review under the jurisdiction is not in dispute at all. 67. While, the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the existence the alternative remedy being power for exercise of writ jurisdiction or exercise of judicial review under the jurisdiction is not in dispute at all. However, under the scheme of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 there is no specific provision laid down for an appeal against an order rejecting the objections of the assessee to the notice issued under Section 148 . The provisions for an appeal would lie against the order of re-assessment. Therefore technically speaking there is no specific alternative remedy prescribed under the provisions of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 against orders passed rejecting the objections of assessee. Nevertheless, the question whether the judicial review is required to be exercised in such cases notwithstanding there being no specific provisions for an appeal, the same will have to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each cases on the basis of which the Revenue is alleged to have formed opinion or recorded the reasons to believe. Therefore under such circumstances in the absence of any statutory remedy, writ proceedings are maintainable where the objections raised by the assessee have been rejected by the assessing officer. 68. In view of the discussions above, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the above. Interim order dated 20.11.2017 stands vacated. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.